This is my question. If there would be no state monopoly on violence (=regulation), what would stop me from killing my competitor instead of improving my product? A bullet is surely cheaper than investing in actual innovation is.

Is it cheaper after 33% of your workers are shot dead and one of your buildings is burned to the ground? Not to mention risk to yourself. Wars are expensive. Sensible people try to avoid them.

As I said, you have to go through proper channels to get a monopoly in the US. If you don't, the penalties are harsh. But if you do, the benefits are enormous. And just like you can't go into a smoke shop and ask for a bong (it has to be called a "water pipe"), you can't call it a monopoly. It's a "government contract."

Also, legal remedies are typically only taken when there is an abuse of a monopoly. It's not illegal to have a monopoly, it's illegal to use it in ways that gain you an unfair position that you wouldn't otherwise have. Of course, I agree that problematic monopolies typically only arise due to government interference. But the solution to problems created by government being more government is nothing new.

If I am the only maker of gerbil hearses in the market, I have the monopoly. Legally, that doesn't mean anything needs to be done about it unless I use my monopoly position to lock out new entrants or to destroy competitors to my small-mammal-vehicle tire division.

This is where the types of monopolies start to make things complex. Sort of like the "capitalism" confusion, the various meanings attached to the word cause this sort of confusion. A natural monopoly is not prevented, nor specifically allowed for, in any law. A coercive monopoly, on the other hand, is explicitly outlawed, unless you have specific permission and charter from the big coercive monopoly itself. And like I said, you can't call it a monopoly, you have to say "government contract"

Ok, instead of replying and rebutting everything that was said, let me try to explain this as simple as I can.

1) Take a finite resource. A scarce resource. For this example, I will use corn fields. I could have also gone with oil(fields) or some type of metal or farmland in general or street corners or anything else that is finite. But I'll go with corn fields for this example.

2) In order to keep this simple, let's say that the entire planet holds a maximum of 1000 equally sized corn fields, all of them owned by individual farmers. These farmers are competing with each other in order to sell their corn.

3) At some point, a couple of things will happen.

Some farmers will realize that cooperating with their neighbors gives them an advantage over all other farmers. They can - for instance - share tractors and other equipment, hence lowering the production cost per square mile. This will enable them to sell their product cheaper than the competition can. Hence, they decide to merge their farms/corn fields.

Other farmers will probably innovate in some other way. This will enable them to lower production costs, which will help them out-compete their neighbors. At some point, the neighbors just can't compete anymore, and they will go out of business. The innovating farmers will have made a lot of money though, so if they're smart - and they are - they will buy up their neighbor's land.

Either way, after a while, every farm will have to merge in order to remain able to compete with all the others. Hence, after a while, the initial 1000 corn fields will have merged into 500 bigger corn fields.

4) Because scaling up will always enable the farmers to out-compete the competition, step three will repeat itself over and over again. Until, at some point, there will be only a handful of huge multinationals holding all of the corn fields in the world.

This is not necessarily a problem yet, I think, but...

5) At this point, the multinationals would be foolish to compete against each other. People need corn, so they could just collude and ask whatever they please instead. They could fix the prices into oblivion, and there would be nothing anyone could do about that. Nobody can start a new farm to undercut the prices, provide better service, or innovate in any way, because all of the corn fields are already taken.

The multinationals could even merge into one even bigger multinational, but like I said, it doesn't really matter at this point. Monopoly or cartel; same difference.

Now, you could argue: "People could switch to grain, hence there would still be competition between the corn multinational(s) and the grain multinational(s)." That would obviously be a false argument, because the corn multinational(s) and the grain multinational(s) could collude with each other just as well, or even merge to form an even bigger bigger multinational.

Bottomline: when scarcity is an issue, an unregulated free market will inevitably lead to a lack of competition, and thus price fixing.

Bottomline: when scarcity is an issue, an unregulated free market will inevitably lead to a lack of competition, and thus price fixing.

I see this fallacy all the time. People see economies of scale, and because they increase efficiency to a point, assume that they continue to increase efficiency indefinitely. The natural result of that train of thought is that economies of scale, left alone, will result in monopolies for everything. Yet, we don't see evidence for this in the real world. Standard Oil, the poster child for this kind of thinking, had, at it's peak, only 88% of the refining market. By the time the regulation came through, they were down to 61%. How to explain this?

Well, the simple answer is that this line of thought is wrong. A slightly more detailed answer would be:

Quote

Companies that take advantage of economies of scale often run into problems of bureaucracy; these factors interact to produce an "ideal" size for a company, at which the company's average cost of production is minimized. If that ideal size is large enough to supply the whole market, then that market is a natural monopoly.

Very few things result in this natural monopoly, because the markets are so large. Notice, as well, that the curve turns up at some point. This is due to diseconomies of scale. The market doesn't need your regulations. It's self-regulating.

The natural result of that train of thought is that economies of scale, left alone, will result in monopolies for everything. Yet, we don't see evidence for this in the real world. Standard Oil, the poster child for this kind of thinking, had, at it's peak, only 88% of the refining market. By the time the regulation came through, they were down to 61%. How to explain this?

I don't know whether this is true, since you didn't provide any source, but even if it is - and it might very well be - I don't think this example says anything. People are still discovering new oil today, so the market was not saturated yet, like it was in my corn fields example. I'm guessing this was the case in your example. Somebody just found new oil. At one point the market would be saturated though.

And even if this was not the case, a monopoly or cartel might have still been the end result. It wasn't exactly the end of history, was it? Bitcoin dropped 10% today. Given your flawless logic I assume you've sold all of it, and are not gonna buy back in, right? Surely the trend could never reverse again.

Also, it's astonishing how the biggest corporations on planet earth seem to have no problems with these economies of scale you are mentioning, isn't it? Even though that flawless theory is based on such elaborate research:

I'm sorry about the sarcasm, but you're argumentation is a joke. You cherry pick your sources with the sole intention of reaffirming your own preconceptions, and are not really interested in any other point of view except for debunking it (and doing a bad job at doing so). And the worst part is that you have a very supercilious way of doing it.

The natural result of that train of thought is that economies of scale, left alone, will result in monopolies for everything. Yet, we don't see evidence for this in the real world. Standard Oil, the poster child for this kind of thinking, had, at it's peak, only 88% of the refining market. By the time the regulation came through, they were down to 61%. How to explain this?

I don't know whether this is true, since you didn't provide any source, but even if it is - and it might very well be - I don't think this example says anything. People are still discovering new oil today, so the market was not saturated yet, like it was in my corn fields example. I'm guessing this was the case in your example. Somebody just found new oil. At one point the market would be saturated though.

You didn't read, did you? They didn't have 88% of the drilling. they had 88% of refining. That means the people who found new oil came to them to refine it. (I misremembered, btw, it was actually 64%, not 61% when the regulation came through.)As for the source, here you go: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Standard_OilYou can track down the references yourself, if you have a mind to.

And even if this was not the case, a monopoly or cartel might have still been the end result. It wasn't exactly the end of history, was it? Bitcoin dropped 10% today. Given your flawless logic I assume you've sold all of it, and are not gonna buy back in, right? Surely the trend could never reverse again.

Uh... what? I take this to mean that you assume that they could have gone from 64% back up to 88% or more?

Also, it's astonishing how the biggest corporations on planet earth seem to have no problems with these economies of scale you are mentioning, isn't it? Even though that flawless theory is based on such elaborate research:

Well, they have government to regulate their industry, and keep competition from horning in on their business, don't they? They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size. If not for the regulations raising the barriers to entry, they could never expand beyond their "ideal" size.

I'm sorry about the sarcasm, but you're argumentation is a joke. You cherry pick your sources with the sole intention of reaffirming your own preconceptions, and are not really interested in any other point of view except for debunking it (and doing a bad job at doing so). And the worst part is that you have a very supercilious way of doing it.

Your personal incredulity of the science of economics does not mean that I am failing to debunk your fallacies, or even doing a poor job of it. It just indicates that you are unwilling to examine any other point of view.

They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size. If not for the regulations raising the barriers to entry, they could never expand beyond their "ideal" size.

This right here is the crux of the problem with many regulations. Some regulations do not create this issue though.

Uh... what? I take this to mean that you assume that they could have gone from 64% back up to 88% or more?

Yes, that is what I meant.

Quote

Well, they have government to regulate their industry, and keep competition from horning in on their business, don't they? They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size. If not for the regulations raising the barriers to entry, they could never expand beyond their "ideal" size.

This is your assumption, and I disagree because I have yet to see solid proof of this hypothesis.

Edit: wait, sorry, I'm not 100% sure whether I'm understanding you correctly. How are any of these corporations not suffering from diseconomies of scale exactly? Or are you suggesting that they are?

Quote

Your personal incredulity of the science of economics does not mean that I am failing to debunk your fallacies, or even doing a poor job of it. It just indicates that you are unwilling to examine any other point of view.

Economy is a social science, not an exact science, like many people seem to think. And since it is a social science, you should wonder whether we should call it 'science' at all. The father of modern science (=scientific method) will explain to you why this is the case, if you really care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science.

As opposed to a growing number of scholars, I don't think economic 'science' is totally useless myself. But you need to apply it in a very different way than you do exact sciences. If you drop a ball in an enclosed environment, you will be able to measure the velocity it falls with, how long it will take to hit the ground, etc. Do it again, and the outcome will be exactly the same. This is one of the main reasons the result will be scientific.

However, if you start a business, or fuel the economy of a country in some way, or anything like this, and it turns out to be a succes, that does not mean you can just do it again. There are way to many factors involved to be able to point out what caused the succes with certainty. Maybe it was a specific aspect of the policy. Maybe it was some other aspect of the policy. Maybe it was the weather, maybe it was dumb luck. You can not know this for sure, and you can not repeat the experiment since the conditions will not be exactly the same.

The usefulness of social sciences (including economics) lies in the discussion itself. Someone will pose a hypothesis, and that hypothesis should be studied. On what basis did he/she draw these conclusions? What other possible causes may have influenced the result? Etc. On basis of this discussion, everybody should make up their own mind. Nobody can prove anything in any scientific way, however.

I am willing to examine an other point of view. I have just done so yesterday, although I must admit I have not put hours and hours in it because it seems to be a waste of time. This is because your point of view seems extremely one sided; your argumentation is weak and relies on a handful of very shaky sources and cherry-picked data.

This is a problem. Assertions become adopted because they support a desired action and become accepted fact. Then even when better, more descriptive theories come along, the old ideas are impossible to budge. In the case of real science, look how quickly the luminous aether, Newtonion mechanics and other outdated models were replaced (even in the face of strong opposition often). For comparison, Keynesianism is stubbornly holding on in the face of almost overwhelming circumstantial evidence of its abysmal failure.

This is a problem. Assertions become adopted because they support a desired action and become accepted fact. Then even when better, more descriptive theories come along, the old ideas are impossible to budge. In the case of real science, look how quickly the luminous aether, Newtonion mechanics and other outdated models were replaced (even in the face of strong opposition often). For comparison, KeynesianismNew neoclassical synthesis( Monetarists ) is stubbornly holding on in the face of almost overwhelming circumstantial evidence of its abysmal failure.

So through my Bitcoin inspired education I would like to add / amended your statement. Keynesianism died in 1971 with the abolishing of the gold standard, Neo-Keynesian economics died with the Monetarists during the Reagan and Thatcher revolution. It is during this revolution that Hayek's, Austria free market ideals are perverted by Milton Friedman who leads the creation of the Monetarism model we have today.

In my view the very worst of the negative side effects of central planning materializing the very worse possible outcome of the free market serving the needs of humanity.

The result is a separation of a sustainable system into to mutually apposed conflicting systems. Ecosystem and Economic system.

"The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." - Albert Einstein

Alpaca John, if I were to Critique as objectivity as possible the outcomes of modern economic theory coming out of the dark ages it would be:

Experiments:Capitalism born out of Feudalism (the principal of free market provides greatest benefits) Capitalism failed to deliver (catalyzed by resorting to force in WWI)Socialism was born (catalyzed by the end of WWII )Communism born alongside Socialism. (Abandoning free market) Communism failed (lack of free market benefits)

We have tested combinations of socialism and all hybrids variations are about to fail.

Yet critics blame Capitalism (free market principles) as the problem while objectivity it is the the glue in every marginally successful system tested.

They look at the exploitation of human and natural capital that happened during the industrial revolution and blame human nature. When in fact the issue is a combination of memes not human nature. The most perverse being the concept of property rights, being a human right.

Uh... what? I take this to mean that you assume that they could have gone from 64% back up to 88% or more?

Yes, that is what I meant.

Well, they could, but if you look at what caused them to lose that market share, you'll see that it's not very likely that they would. Every time Standard Oil failed to capitalize on new technology, a competitor did, and so snagged a little bit more of their market share. The large company was simply too inflexible, and couldn't keep up with the more "nimble" smaller competitors. Then you have to look at what got them the 88% in the first place. They competed on quality (thus the name, even, selected because it indicate that their oil was all standardized, and of the same quality), before Standard, heating oil was basically a crapshoot. the refining was shoddy, and the quality of the product highly variable. There were fires, even explosions, resulting from varying, and thus unpredictable, quality of oil. Standard fixed that, and then all the other companies (the 12%) met their quality standards, and the competitive advantage that Standard had was gone. Then they had to compete on price. In fact, refined oil prices "fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897." So you can hardly say it was bad for the consumer.

Well, they have government to regulate their industry, and keep competition from horning in on their business, don't they? They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size. If not for the regulations raising the barriers to entry, they could never expand beyond their "ideal" size.

This is your assumption, and I disagree because I have yet to see solid proof of this hypothesis.

Edit: wait, sorry, I'm not 100% sure whether I'm understanding you correctly. How are any of these corporations not suffering from diseconomies of scale exactly? Or are you suggesting that they are?

They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size.

They are (well, at east some of them are), in that their per-unit cost of production is higher than it absolutely needs to be. In a free market, a competitor could take advantage of that, and snag some of their market share from them. The bigger company would then be forced to "trim the fat," and get costs down. You can visualize this by looking at the graph I posted, and imagining that the bottom axis is "% of market served." If a company pushes past the bottom of that curve, in an attempt to serve more of the market, that opens up an opportunity for a competitor (Imagine a line coming in from the other side of the graph) to undercut them and make a profit, pushing them back to the bottom of the curve. Now, CEOs know this, and they also know that if they can secure 100% of the market, it doesn't matter what their costs are, because they can charge whatever they want. But as the graph shows, at 100% of the market, the cost would be very nearly prohibitive, so the only way they can keep a competitor from undercutting them is to prevent the competitor from competing in the first place. (Again, this is somewhat simplified, in the real world, that curve changes drastically for production of each item, changing shape, and moving around, and for some, the bottom of the curve does lie at 100%.)

As for proof of this, you need only look at Amazon. Until recently, they have been vehemently against making internet sellers collect sales tax on the items they sell. They are forced to collect taxes on items they sell in states where they have physical presence, however, and so as they move into more states to supply their same-day-delivery service, their per-unit cost is rising due to tax. A competitor could take advantage of that, by servicing same-day delivery to states that Amazon hasn't reached yet, and only having to collect taxes on those few states, thus keeping their costs low. So to prevent that, they now have switched sides. The marginal cost of collecting all the taxes, not just the ones in states where they have physical presence is minor, now, compared to what they already pay. But, by forcing that smaller competitor to collect all those other taxes, and thus suffer the same costs as they do, they can keep the competitor out of their hair. The marginal cost for the competitor of these new regulations is much higher than that of Amazon, possibly removing the ability of the smaller company to compete at all.

Your personal incredulity of the science of economics does not mean that I am failing to debunk your fallacies, or even doing a poor job of it. It just indicates that you are unwilling to examine any other point of view.

Economy is a social science, not an exact science, like many people seem to think. And since it is a social science, you should wonder whether we should call it 'science' at all. The father of modern science (=scientific method) will explain to you why this is the case, if you really care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science.

As opposed to a growing number of scholars, I don't think economic 'science' is totally useless myself. But you need to apply it in a very different way than you do exact sciences. If you drop a ball in an enclosed environment, you will be able to measure the velocity it falls with, how long it will take to hit the ground, etc. Do it again, and the outcome will be exactly the same. This is one of the main reasons the result will be scientific.

Meteorology is a science, and the system that it models is chaotic, and hard to predict. The weather man is never 100% correct. Does this mean that meteorology is not a science, or that it is merely an inexact one?

You judge a model in an inexact science, such as meteorology or economics by how well it predicts the behavior of the system it models. And Austrian economics has been vindicated time and again by correctly predicting market behavior. Keynesian economics, on the other hand, fails miserably. So, which model do you think we should adopt?

They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size. If not for the regulations raising the barriers to entry, they could never expand beyond their "ideal" size.

This right here is the crux of the problem with many regulations. Some regulations do not create this issue though.

I am not sure I understanding you correctly? I agree that is the crux of the matter, however I don't understand your qualifier "Some regulations do not create this issue"I question your assumption and would say that regulating the money supply and creating inflation, and providing solvency stimulus to keep inefficient oversized corporations viable is prissily the issue created by regulation of the money supply.

(just a meme not fact).This is the Dogma that gave Keynes advantage over Hayek, they were debating apples and oranges. Mises, so elegantly discounted every economic mathematical model proposed for the same reason.

Human Preference is a social science, and Human Preference is key to understanding at what point, to use previous examples, people stop buying corn and start buying grain, and at what point they substitute grain with sorghum, and when do consumers give that up and consume seaweed, - this is why monopolies are hard to maintain.

How individuals determine value is irrational, (this is as true of 2 year olds as it is of stamp collectors or a gold bug), it is largely circumstantial time and need dependant) given this as a fact any economic calculation that involved a fixed value (defined by consumer demand) should be considered a stoical science. (Scientific models are rejected wrongly because opponents add Human Preference to make their argument.)

Mathematic principles derived from the laws of nature can be defined and are therefore considered science. Take meteorology for eg. The principle of air moving from a high pressure to a low pressure is science. There are so many factors like the surface area on all the leaves on the trees the wind moves past, and given that will affect the speed at which the air will travel are not understood this does not negate the scientific principal. (Given just this one unknown an accurate predictions will always be wrong); and depending on the time, place and circumstances the measurements are taken one may even get the direction of the wind wrong - but the scientific facts the direction of air flow will move from a high to low pressure will always be correct. Likewise It is in this scientific fundamental market principle that supply and demand determine the direction of price, it's just we can't measure it accurately because of human preference, but like meteorology, we know the science behind high and low pressures is sound, we can know the principals behind supply and demand are equally sound.

The natural result of that train of thought is that economies of scale, left alone, will result in monopolies for everything. Yet, we don't see evidence for this in the real world. Standard Oil, the poster child for this kind of thinking, had, at it's peak, only 88% of the refining market. By the time the regulation came through, they were down to 61%. How to explain this?

I don't know whether this is true, since you didn't provide any source

its intended to critique socialism but its actually literally the exact same phenomena at work that prevents companies from growing too large.

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?

In a free market, I think monopoly's in general will almost certainly develop over things that are scarce.

I agree that monopolies are not good, and I agree that when you have one you can institute price controls and understand that is the source of your concern.

I would like to challenge your assumption that the free market is the cause of monopoly. I would like you to consider the definition of monopoly, in relation to the state, any state not just the US, Germany or otherwise.

I think the definition provided (A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity)

By lobbying government and affecting the law, you can create a monopoly, Fiat, being the most obvious and bank's who own the institution that controls it being somewhat central to this discussion. But other monopolies exist that are granted by the state; Intellectual Property by its definition takes an ethereal idea and through law creates a physical monopoly. Many believe this monopoly is necessary and is the sole drive behind innovation (just a meme not fact).

Another monopoly is Land. The state by granting property rights of land to one farmer, is denying another labour the right to farm the land (state sanctioned unemployment). Almost everyone argues this monopoly is the sole driving force behind the fee market (just a meme not fact).

I would also like to challenge you objection to the use of violence, it is and should always be a measure of last resort, it shouldn't be illegal, just avoided at almost any cost. When you attempt to eradicate Direct Violence through Law it materialises as Structural Violence in society. Almost everyone believes violence is wrong, but we give power to a state to uses force (resulting in violence) to prevent violence. (just a meme not fact) yet People overlook the irony, as they believe it is a means to an end.

Quote from: Mahatma Gandhi

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.

as Richy_T couldn't put it more bluntly, I would add you don't need to be sensible to want to avoid it. All lesser competing mammals, reptiles, and insects know the limit when mounting a challenge of finite recourses, be it a mate, or territory in the wild. They know how far to push and when to stop before you need to prevent a compromising injury (a war).

To the point of Drug violence, and the profitable street corner, innovation has created a better system, a virtual street corner (Silk Road) where everyone competes on equal footing, the result is the consumer gets better service and more competitive pricing. The trend is free market solves problems most effectively.

Bottomline: when scarcity is an issue, an unregulated free market will inevitably lead to a lack of competition, and thus price fixing.

Corporation and healthy competition is what happens in a free market.

I question you resulting prediction. While I agree business may have the objective to achieve a monopoly, and reduce the farmers to slaves, the free market does not give them a mechanism to achieve that goal, as illustrated with the Silk Road example or consumers changing their eating habits Corn - Wheat.

I share your concern though. As prises are sticky, corporations who have influence with the central banks can manipulate the money supply and force a boom bust business cycle, and the corporations can snap up the valuable properly during the peak insolvencies, as has been happening since the early 1900.

I would say "scarcity" is a function of demand, not supply the value is created by what the demand side is willing to do to obtain what is scarce. If the Demand is grossly asymmetric and incurable then you need to address how the monopoly is allowed to exist.

I agree with everything myrkul has to say as to why monopolies are not practical to maintain, and would disappear when one eradicate government . where I agree with Alpaca John is, if you can get a monopoly, you can affect controlee and price manipulation, and where I disagree with Alpaca John is I don't believe it is possible to ever regulate or prevent monopolies through State control, ultimately someone convinces someone that a monopoly would be good for the people, and when it becomes law the working class suffer.

As I see it:Alpaca John: is using the scientific method to prove that a monopoly is likely attainable through the use of capital, (proposed a solution - regulation is needed). Myrkul: is proving a monopoly is highly unlikely due to Human Preference, ( solution - markets self regulate)

Adrian-X: both are correct - Alpaca John solution is wrong; Myrkul: solution is correct but insufficient. (Solution the property, given by God or the gods, or the big bang, [land air and water] is redefined in a new meme as something other than a commodity)

Adrian-X: both are correct - Alpaca John solution is wrong; Myrkul: solution is correct but insufficient. (Solution the property, given by God or the gods, or the big bang, [land air and water] is redefined in a new meme as something other than a commodity)

This is interesting. Now, which meme would you prefer replaces "Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, therefore, space, being scarce, must be allocated, and the fairest means of allocating space is that the first occupier has a better claim than all subsequent claimants, and this claim can only be transferred voluntarily," ie, private property, homestead principle, and voluntary sale?

And, given that the current understanding of voluntary trade is founded on that meme, how would you structure an economy based on your meme?

Having lived in third world country and seen what corruption looks like, this discussion while enlightening, misses a very visceral component. The poor people involved in these situations have very little in the way of improving their station. Even with this blatant inequality government is still a necessity.

Also, it was stated that lower mammals, insects, lizards, etc. know how to establish a balance naturally. That isn't exactly true. There is natural order to things including a food chain. These animals are kept in check by natural predators. If left unchecked they will cause an imbalance in the ecosystem and the correction will be severe.

The state has had to bust up monopolies before. ATT owned all of the infrastructure that our telecommunications traffic traversed in the United States. If the government had not stepped in and broken them up there would have been no incentive for them to do so and how could anyone enter the market after that? Of course they had a "government contract" after WWII to provide POTS to everyone in the country but that's only because they were already covering 95% of it.

The most perverse being the concept of property rights, being a human right.

Property rights are required for capitalism to function. How can someone agree to trade something that isn't his?

I would argue you we don't need Capitalism, we need something new something better, we need a hybrid of individualism, Laissez-faire markets, and to address Marx's (and Alpaca John's and my) concerns with Property. IE: effectively he who has a monopoly on the land rights controls the labour.

Pure Capitalism has failed with the pre WWI power States dividing up all the Land in the world.

The resulting "Victors" of WWI failed to create a Global economy with symmetrical trade benefits based on productivity, John Maynard Keynes saw the global inequality and resulting conflicts and predicted WWII would be a result. Keynes economic insight saw him alienated after WWI, he worked on a solution independently, and by chance WWII was largely driven by his economic predictions, he was the Man with the solution to the problem after WWII.

The resulting compromise of the 2 World Wars was more diversity and individual State interests (& the UN), in effect free market among states, and socialism to manage the markets within the State.

WWI was a power struggle to control recourses, WWII was a power struggle to control trade, It looks like we are in a currency war now, and the net result looks like the players in the game are new with the goal to collapse nations and implement a new centrally controlled Fiat Currency as a global reserve and have control over trade and recourses, only this time the forses are not just States but the Multinationals Alpaca John is concerned about, the market brand monopolies who control recourses, and WTO trade policies. They know no Boarders; they get there power from their proximity to the big central banks and new money pre inflation or trade imbalances and in imbalances in legislation in different regions.

Also, it's astonishing how the biggest corporations on planet earth seem to have no problems with these economies of scale you are mentioning, isn't it? Even though that flawless theory is based on such elaborate research:

I think you are confusing the cause, I don't see free market as the problem, I see the " biggest corporations on planet", as having leveraged the economic system to their advantage, using existing Monetarist policy and resulting fanatical instruments.

This is a result of a prevention of Laissez-faire Markets controlled by a Central Bank.In effect we are seeing the best feature of capitalism hybridised with the worst feature of Marxism A controlled Central Bank.

In short people who have new ideas often just stop having old ideas.

In effect we need to mimic the systems we see come from out of Nature, taking the most effective free market ideals and hybridise them with insights and understanding of Marx's concern with how property is owned.